Before I lash out at Thomas Fraudulent, did any members of the press notice what Paul Wolfowitz said at Georgetown University on Friday (10/31/2003)? Comparing the US invasion to life under Saddam Hussein, he said “A lot of innocents were sacrificed and the alternative would have been far more brutal, there is no question in my mind”.
Well, here is a thought for his ugly Likudnik mind. The Iraqi innocents who were sacrificed by Wolfie and his gang were not likely the very same innocents who would have been brutalized by Saddam. These neo-cons need to understand that every one of those innocents was a living breathing human being before Wolfie took out a license to indulge in Likudnik sacrifice rituals. The argument that American war crimes are less heinous than Saddam’s war crimes is like comparing the relative comforts of Stalin’s gulags to Hitler’s concentration camps. The Bush administration should investigate the fate of every single Iraqi innocent who was sacrificed by Wolfowitz and his neo-con cabal. But first, they need to start counting them.
On this count, Wolfowitz should not be singled out. Who can forget Madeline Albright’s casual response about whether the death of half a million Iraqis from sanctions was “worth it”? Her answer was yes. Again, she didn’t bother to ask a single Iraqi child to volunteer his life for her cause.
Now, on to one of my favorite assignments; Bashing Thomas Fraudulent of the New York Times, the Daily Ruse.
Thomas Friedman (NYT 10/30/2003) writes that the reason for Arab resistance to the American occupation is that “They understand that this is the most radical-liberal revolutionary war the U.S. has ever launched -” a war of choice to install some democracy in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.” I wasn’t aware that the average Iraqi was so well versed in liberal revolutionary American military history.
In any case, with this ‘Fraudulent Thomas’ declaration, Friedman is now officially a neo-con. The ranks of the neo-cons have now expanded from a total of 49 Likudniks to a whopping 50.
Towing the orthodox neo-con line, Friedman identifies the resistance as mostly Baath party hard liners and Islamic radicals. On the other side of the NYT editorial page, Safire, who doubles as a ghost writer for Ariel Sharon, disputes Friedman. In Safire’s estimate, Syria is directing the entire resistance. Sulzberger, their publisher, must obviously see the need for intervention to assure that Safire and Friedman are reading from the same page. After all, they write on the same right-wing neo-con infested editorial page of the New York Times.
If Friedman wants to agitate for democracy in the ‘heart of the Arab-Muslim war’, why didn’t he suggest we start with Kuwait. Why did the United States, after liberating Kuwait, turn it back into an absolute monarchy? For twelve years, three American administrations have never even considered prodding the Kuwaitis in the direction of democracy. Even Saddam gave women the right to vote in his sham elections. If you want to set up models, Kuwait would have been just the right size for a nice little display of American sponsored democracy. Besides, what happened to the WMDs?
Does Friedman honestly expect Iraqis and Americans to believe that Likudnik neo-cons have any interest in ‘liberating’ the Arabs of the Middle East? Why don’t they prod their sisters in Tel Aviv to liberate the Palestinians from thirty-six years of vicious Israeli military rule? Does Friedman not know that his fellow travelers in the neo-con movement publicly agitated against the Oslo peace process and that they advised Netenyahu to do whatever was necessary to derail the two-state solution? Does he think Wolfie’s Israeli sister is a member of Peace Now movement? Is he not aware that Douglas Feith is a partner in an Israeli law firm that represents the settler movement? Did he not notice during the Mark Rich affair that Lewis Libby flaunted his intimate ties with Israeli intelligence? Any reader of the Jerusalem Post is aware that Richard Perle is on the Board of Directors? Has the American Enterprise Institute issued Friedman security clearance?
Now that Friedman has joined the neo-con cabal, he openly declares his support of this ‘war of choice’. Those are choice words for a journalist who covered the Israeli war in Lebanon, another ‘war of choice’. He must have lost his copy of Jacobo Timmerman’s “The longest war”. But who wants to bring up ancient history about every Israeli ‘war of choice’ that has Friedman’s seal of approval? Who can forget that Friedman was the hack that Sulzberger appointed to sanitize Ariel Sharon and cover up his role in the Sabra and Shatila massacres? By his own account, Fraudulent Thomas has been infatuated with Sharon since he was a high school kid in Minnesota.
I have a few hints for this intellectually challenged runt from the New York Times. The last people in the world concerned with Arab liberties are the Likudnik neo-cons. So, spare us the disgusting notion that the tormentors of the Palestinians have bleeding hearts for the Iraqis. Just because the Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam and his thugs does not translate into automatic support for Wolfie the liberator. Maybe that explains why they tried to assassinate him twice, by shooting down a helicopter just three hours after he left Tikrit and by an assault on the Al Rashid hotel. Not a few Iraqis are incensed about Wolfie sacrificing so many of their kin.
In the same nitwit article, Friedman compares the Iraqi resistance to the Khemer Rouge. Wrong analogy. For one thing, he should notice that they are not just kids wearing black pajamas. If he wants an analogy closer to home, he should read up on the Hatfields and McCoys. This explains why the Iraqi resistance is so ‘shadowy’ and has not developed the custom of issuing press releases. As in the case of the vanishing WMDs, the search goes on for a central or regional command structure that can be decapitated. Neither will be found anytime soon.
Thomas ‘Fraudulent’ should look up a three-letter word in his Arabic dictionary. TAR. Iraq is still very much a tribal society, where tribal members are obliged to take vengeance into their own hands. In their neck of the woods, they call this kind of activity ‘TAR’. You kill an innocent member of their tribe; they try to kill member of your tribe. You insult a member of their family and that also becomes an excuse to knock off a member of your tribe. Indeed, many Iraqis are taking full advantage of the post invasion chaos to settle scores with other Iraqis, including former Baathists. Once those old accounts are settled, they might all team up and join the insurgency. At that point, you move from an insurgency to an insurrection.
There is another thing little Tommy’s mind might not have grasped. Contrary to the predictions of the neo-con cabal, the Iraqi resistance got stronger after Qusai and Udai where out of the way. Once Iraqis were certain that liberation from foreign occupation would not be followed by another generation of Baathist repression, they had more incentive to join the insurgency. If Saddam turns up dead anytime soon, all the more reasons to worry. Given his narcissistic penchant for self-promotion, the fact that he has vanished probably means that he is already dead or incapacitated by a post-narcissistic bout of paranoia. If one is not blinded by Likudnik ideology, the logic of intensified Iraqi resistance is easily apparent. First they got rid of the dictator, now they are trying to get rid of the foreign invader. Yes Virginia, in Iraqi estimates, it is the Anglo-American occupation army that is considered foreign intruders.
But the real news is that Thomas Fraudulent has blown his cover and publicly embraced Wolfie the Liberator and his neo-con chicken hawks. So, watch out for more neo-con fantasies playing out on the pages of the New York Times, The Daily Ruse.